Talk:Alan Dershowitz: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Alan Dershowitz article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 90 days

	Alan Dershowitz was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 1, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed March 29, 2020 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. Biography B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Israel B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. Merge Nahal Rafiah (draft, heb) into Nahal as requested by Wikipedia authority Palestine B‑class Mid‑importance B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. United States B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Jewish history B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must be logged-in and making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process . Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Template:Vital article

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on September 1, 2019.

@

Jtbobwaysf, the scholar letter from Medium supplements the NYT source that states in sentence one "Scholars have roundly rejected a central argument of President Trump’s lawyers that abuse of power is not by itself an impeachable offense" that supports the edit statement "The Trump legal team reasoning has been roundly rejected by legal scholars." This topic regards a major constitutional issue about which a prominent constitutional scholar made extensive, unequivocal, decisive and emphatic remarks which he has now completely reversed, so the full context of this episode is justified here. Anything less is a whitewash. 19:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)soibangla (talk)

No Medium content on this BLP, per policy. Please review the perennial sources link above. If no RS cares, it for sure doesnt belong here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's replace it with this and this. Good to go now? soibangla (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do either of these sources mention Dershowitz? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jtbobwaysf, They don't need to. They show that scholars roundly reject Dershowitz's current position, and support his prior position which he so emphatically made clear. But we can add this and this if you'd like. soibangla (talk) 19:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This content is already in the article in summarized form. What is it you are trying to add? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jtbobwaysf, I'm not trying to add anything. Others are trying to subtract. For no good reason. soibangla (talk) 19:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That should be a sign that the content might not belong. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Dershowitz has been the go-to guy on television for decades whenever a constitutional issue arises, millions of Americans consider him to be the expert on the Constitution, and for decades he has trained hundreds of other top constitutional/criminal law experts at the nation's historically most prominent law school. The Trump case is the culmination and capstone of his long career, this is as big as it will ever get for him, and only after video surfaces his views of 22 years ago, which he has not since walked-back a single inch, he suddenly pulls an epic 180 to retract his extensive, unequivocal, decisive and emphatic remarks. This is a momentous episode in his career, likely to be mentioned early in his obituary, and it deserves a solid paragraph in his BLP, as well as a mention in the lead. This is a BFD for his BLP. soibangla (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

The content is already summarized in the article. You are pushing to change the summary to

WP:LONGQUOTE? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

The content is already summarized in the article. The original content was unduly eviscerated. In this particular case, a significant excerpt of his statements is warranted, especially his reference to "we look at how they conduct the foreign policy," which cuts to the heart of the impeachment he is now involved in, and perhaps it should be prominently displayed as a blockquote. soibangla (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

Jtbobwaysf, the edit contains no POV whatsoever, it is fully balanced, it does not violate LONGQUOTE, and I again recommend you refrain from casting aspersions upon me lest I seek administrative remedies. soibangla (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

Jtbobwaysf: You just made an edit you described in your edit summary as "cleanup," when in fact you removed the characterization of Dershowizz's comment, but you left behind his rebuttal to the characterization, thereby creating a non sequitur that mangles the paragraph. You removed the content that shows why his statement stirred controversy, which is the whole point of the paragraph, supported by multiple reliable sources. I am not pushing POV, you are impugning my integrity by repeatedly casting aspersions upon me and I am on the brink of seeking administrative action against you. soibangla (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not a venue for mundane legal arguments and rebuttals. You can refer to

WP:BLP rules if you are confused. Lawyers make arguments, thats what they do. Obviously wikipedia is not a storehouse for every nonsense that comes out of a lawyers mouth, and even more so the opposing lawyer's response to it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Jtbobwaysf: These are major statements he is making during the biggest case of his career, consequently they are highly relevant to his BLP. Your stated basis of "cleanup" for removal of content accomplished the exact opposite, and despite having this plainly and clearly explained to you this twice, you chose to escalate an edit war. And here you are falsely accusing me of impropriety. Unbelievable. soibangla (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources that show that this is the biggest case of his career? Or just your

WP:OR? Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Jtbobwaysf: You removed vital content from the paragraph that resulted in it being a mangled non sequitur, then impugn my motives. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so surreal. soibangla (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it is not the biggest case of his career, since you have no retort for that. I dont care about your motives, at wikipedia we dont discuss other editors, we focus on the content. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

at wikipedia we dont discuss other editors, says Jtbobwaysf after repeatedly impugning my integrity and motives over multiple days. soibangla (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See

WP:APR. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Jtbobwaysf: Oh. The. Irony. soibangla (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cease the

WP:BATTLE. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 February 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The first sentence states that he is a "scholar of United States constitutional law and criminal law." Strike "constitutional law" because he is not widely seen as an expert in constitutional law. See https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/22/opinion/alan-dershowitz-impeachment.html ("Mr. Dershowitz is an expert on civil liberties and criminal law and procedure, not constitutional law generally.")Liubpy (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC) Liubpy (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Again, take it up with the Washington Post, which is cited in the lead. In their article, Dershowitz is described as one of "A dozen of the country's most respected constitutional scholars". Feel free to begin a discussion that provides wording that balances the two sources. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

THE URL FOR MR DERSHOWITZ'S WEBSITE IS SHOWN AS www.alandershowitz.com IT SHOULD BE CORRECTED TO www.alan-dershowitz.com

THAT IS: PLEASE CHANGE www.alandershowitz.com TO www.alan-dershowitz.com 2604:B2C0:1718:D600:387A:D97A:B4CE:F5CF (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correction made. Thanks for the suggestion.--agr (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The caption under the image of Finkelstein said "unproven accusation of plagiarism". Since the charge has never been judged by a court, it would be equally true to call it an "undisproved accusation of plagiarism". Therefore the word "unproven" amounts to a commentary and I'm changing it to just "accusation of plagiarism" which doesn't express a judgement about it. Zero^talk 08:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism is not a crime and does not normally get adjudicated by a court of law. In academic settings, such charges are normally investigated by the institution where the accused works or studies. That happened in this case and Harvard determined that no plagiarism occurred. I've clarified the caption, but including a picture of someone who made an unfounded charge seems like undue weight. I'm inclined to move the picture to the article about the controversy between them.--agr (talk) 13:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Struck comment by JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, a blocked and banned

sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive § 06 May 2020 and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger talk 17:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Plagiarism is regularly prosecuted as fraud or copyright violation, and charges of plagiarism are often prosecuted as libel. So that much is incorrect. The new caption is factually incorrect as the alleged investigation by one person, albeit the president, is not the same as an investigation by the university. Investigation of academic (faculty) misconduct by universities involves appointment of a committee that includes subject experts. I'll stop complaining if "investigation by Harvard" (which is false) is replaced by "investigation by the president of Harvard" (which is true). Deleting the image as suggested is also ok. Zero^talk 00:30, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since this GA review has already closed as unsuccessful, I'm going to move this section to the talk page and hat the review so no further edits are made to it. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, BlueMoonset. @Zero0000: As this reference [5] points out, the sort of plagiarism at issue here is unlikely to be criminally prosecuted. I would have no problem adding the President of Harvard to the caption, but since you don't object, I think the best solution is to remove the photo from this article, which I will do.--agr (talk) 13:16, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Finkelstein is not notable and the photo doesnt add anything to the article. Just delete the photo. Also deleted the opinion quote in this section, doesnt belong here and violates sourcing rules relating to BP:BLP. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If "we dont include opinions" was true about BLPs (which it isn't), you would have deleted Bok's opinion too. Zero^talk 00:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I have restored the quote with an edit summary that explains policy. The author of the quote need not be notable, and we do include opinions and attribute them. There is no "sourcing rule" that forbids opinion sources for BLPs, none at all, not even a shadow of one. On the contrary.

I have written an essay about NPOV and how to deal with biased sources and content: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. -- Valjean (talk) 05:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000: The accusations were unproven, and BLP requires this notation. BLP applies to any reputationally damaging information, not just criminal convictions. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Accusation" does not imply "true accusation" by virtue of the English language. Qualifying it as "unproved accusation" adds an editorial comment to it. We are supposed to report facts (in this case, that there was an accusation) without adding our commentary. Zero^talk 01:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valjean, in this edit [6] you have reverted to add

CounterPunch is not a blog website, it is a magazine with editorial oversight. Articles in a magazine, including opinion articles, are not self-published sources. The epilogue to Finkelstein's book, which contains a much longer (32 page) version of this essay, is not self-published either — it is published by the University of California Press. Zero^talk 09:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jtbobwaysf kindly informed us of this RSN discussion (not). Zero^talk 11:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It is not a blog and the content is not self-published. Per WP:RS/P, CounterPunch is "a biased or opinionated source, its statements should be attributed." I did not mention PUBLICFIGURE as a reason, but only mentioned it to show that extremely negative content, much more than what's under discussion, is allowed here with the proper sourcing requirements. This is just a slightly negative comment, and trying to keep this long-standing content out using specious arguments that ignore policies isn't right. -- Valjean (talk) 14:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why this author is

WP:BLP?.--Shrike (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

It's not a blog. The author is clearly notable and this article was cited in many books and studies. (e.g [7][8])--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What make him notable? --Shrike (talk) 13:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most BLPs of public figures contain attributed criticism. This article is notable for how little it contains, despite the subject's highly controversial and exceptionally combative nature. More should be added, not less. On this particular topic, NPOV also requires some counter to the claim that the plagiarism allegation has been disproved. There is no requirement that the author of a source must be notable, though some amount of qualification is expected (a law degree and a PhD in this case is plenty). Zero^talk 13:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) He has a law degree from UCLA School of Law and he is a judge in the California superior court.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shrike, even if he wasn't notable, the author does not have to be notable, so this is a red herring (which doesn't even apply in this case). Notability is a requirement for article creation. That's all. -- Valjean (talk) 14:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's false.

WP:DUE applies and in this case undue weight is applied because someone is a UCLA grad and a judge, as an editor laughably argues. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

This thread was started with a post that contained inaccurate factual claims and a misunderstanding of relevant policy. I don't think it should be necessary to have an extended discussion here... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'm surprised that our policies aren't understood better by an editor who has been here so long. The edit summary here was especially bizarre, as it's totally wrong: "not WP:RS for WP:BLP. we dont include opinions, that is obvious from POV perspective." That last "from POV perspective" is really puzzling. Why should the POV of the author be an issue? If they didn't have a POV on the subject, we wouldn't even use them as a source. Think about that. We are supposed to use content from RS, including content from biased sources with clear POV. -- Valjean (talk) 14:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA applies to your critique. The thread is starting by me discussing a non-noteworthy person promoting his personal opinion/book, signing his personal email address, published by a dubious political blog website (already listed as a dubious source per perennial sources). Hard to believe there is so much discussion here of this. Amazing how these AP2 battles get so far off kilter. In a BLP we err on the side of neutrality, despite whatever nonsense you may have written in your essay. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Disagreeing with your understanding of policy is not a personal attack; it is a type of discussion we are supposed to have. What I'd like to know is why you keep repeating that this a blog website when it isn't. Next, your statement "we err on the side of neutrality" is correct, but your version is essentially "he was accused and the accusation was found to be false". Taking sides in an argument is the opposite of neutrality. Zero^talk 02:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Found to be false by who, an author who writes a blog post? Nah, that is

WP:OR to determine the donkey is very smart and has a degree from UCLA and maybe his university's free press department published his book on donkey grooming. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Which only goes to show that if you don't read what I write then your reply won't make any sense. Incidentally, your nonsense words "blog text" and "free press department" show that you are out of your depth. Zero^talk 06:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For opinion to be included, the person holding the opinion does not need to be notable, but the principle of

Reasons: (1) This is the only opinion in support of Finkelstein that is reported, though many could be reported. One opinion from someone obviously qualified to make it is not undue, but required for balance. (2) The nature of CounterPunch is the least of the issues here, since I have the long version of Menetrez' response published by the University of California Press and could easily cite directly from there. Actually Menetrez doesn't just propose that the accusation wasn't properly investigated (what we cite to him now), but that he investigated the accusation himself and considers that it is true. I'm wondering why that isn't reported. Zero^talk 02:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody else cares, it makes this DUE? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is

In an opinion piece supportive of Finkelstein written for CounterPunch, Los Angeles attorney Frank Menetrez asserted that "neither Dershowitz nor Harvard ... has identified the specific issues or arguments that Harvard allegedly investigated and rejected. In particular, neither of them has ever said whether Harvard investigated the identical errors issue".^[1]

Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

• UNDUE and Remove because obscure lawyer op-ed published in
  WP:BLP. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• UNDUE and Remove This clearly opinion by nobody and it used to PUSH a one-sided POV here. --Shrike (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  This is actually a BLP violation. Calling someone nobody is a violation of BLP. See

  WP:BLPTALK.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• UNDUE and Remove - a non-notable opinion (ie: not covered by anyone but the author and a fringe source), from a non notable individual. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• UNDUE and Remove Not neutral. ~ HAL333 21:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • HAL333, that is not a policy-based argument. Non-neutral sources and biased content are expressly allowed by several policies, and are often seen as the best content because they actually contribute something. We just attribute them. We don't even bother with comments that say nothing. Such comments are never the subject of disputes and rarely used. -- 17:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Four identical votes within three hours. Hmmmm. Zero^talk 04:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a mild observation from a qualified person which is needed to counter the opinion of Derek Bok. It isn't acceptable to have only opinion other than Dershowitz and Finkelstein. Also, when this RfC is over I will change the citation to a publication of the University of California Press so all arguments based on the nature of CounterPunch are irrelevant. Zero^talk 04:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this a notable opinion that has been cited in reliable sources. It has also been published by the University of California. I can't see any legit reason for removing this.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Not a neutral RfC see discussion below.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There is a paragraph dedicated to Menetrez's opinion included in the main article — Dershowitz–Finkelstein affair, it's included in Norman Finkelstein's article, in the epilogue of Finkelstein's book, it's been cited as a reference in this book, and mentioned in a book review in The Guardian. Menetrez has the qualifications to opine on the matter, his statements are attributed to him, and I don't see a BLP issue with his opinion either. Since the section in this article is supposed to summarize the contents of the main article, it's not undue to include a single sentence here in this article, since it is basically the crux of his argument. And for the record, I didn't find the RfC to be non-neutral and I understood what was being asked. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is an important and notable analysis of the affair. It has been cited by several reputable publications, including
  Huffington Post, [10] Aftenposten,[11] and New Politics.[12] Significantly, it has been described as a "decisive analysis"[13] by the Professor of Jurisprudence Brian Leiter, who is described in our article on him as "one of the most influential legal philosophers of our time", and is thus clearly not a "nobody". Menetrez's view is thus clearly notable, and should be included. RolandR (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep whether or not the RFC is non-neutral.Selfstudier (talk) 12:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per RolandR, we have coverage of Menetrez's comments in multiple RS sources. One sentence on Menetrez's position, supported by better refs than Counterpunch, is not undue, nor is it a BLP issue.Dialectric (talk) 14:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove - seems not really BLP stuff, odd details given undue prominence here and not clear about meaning. If we’re not able to state a clear event this caused, then it seems a hypothetical arguing rather than anything important in his life. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per RolandR, and as much as I know/assume, he (RonaldR) has mentioned helpful items for it. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Include An opinion piece by an unreliable publication by a non-notable author. The reliability/notability of an opinion piece is whatever that of the author is, and this person has neither according to WP standards. The author offers an interesting analysis, but we need to see this published in a reliable source. Reputationally damaging allegations involve the highest sourcing standards, and allegations of plagiariasm fall in that cat. Include with reference to secondary source material covering it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this RFC question conveniently claims that this is simply from CounterPunch when in the section above it is noted that a longer version of this essay appears in a book published by the University of California Press. Change the citation to Finkelstein's book and the objection on the quality of the publisher vanishes. On the merits, it is indeed unacceptable to include only a position against Finkelstein here by a third party. Lest we forget, Finkelstein is likewise a living person BLP applies to him as well. With the citation to Finkelstein's book, this material satisfies RS and DUE and should be retained. nableezy - 02:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Counterpunch is the periodical that the Menetrez op-ed was originally published in. It was perfectly appropriate to present the link, not "convenient" or in bad faith as you seem to suggest. The response by Dershowitz was published in the same allegation. If you can provide a link where a reliable secondary source republished the piece in full, which you suggest exists, then RS may be satisfied, but not until then. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What about that this material also appears in a book published by the University of California Press do you not get? Here is your link. A link already provided in this RFC by another comment oh by the way. nableezy - 03:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it can be briefly mentioned with a citation to the Current Affairs article. It doesn't mean much that Finkelstein republished it word-for-word in his book. The original citation to Counterpunch can be included with the secondary source material. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please only write things you know to be true. The book version came first and the Counterpunch article is a short version "drawn from" it (as it says) of a bit less than half the length. Zero^talk 03:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the disclaimer said it was drawn from a forthcoming book. This would seem to suggest the article came first. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

• The request for comment question seems vague and unneutral. Is there anyone who can fix this mess.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The RfC starts by violating
  WP:RfC rules, so this all lacks validity. -- Valjean (talk) 06:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Which rule specifically? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Writing a RfC guidelines. You can find lots of information of how to write a RfC

here. Your request for comment starts with "This is WP:DUE/UNDUE:". It's not clear and not a question. The correct wording would be "Should we remove this...".--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 07:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Since this is a RfC that can make editors misunderstand the arguments. I think we should close it.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 07:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are saying I should add a question mark? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, you should make a straightforward question. Even if your RfC was a question, the answers (e.g Due or undue) are not the outcome that we need, the outcomes that we need are "exclude or include". You narrowed the debate by your RfC. The question should be straightforward like this "Should we include this?" Or "should we remove this?".--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The question should not be leading, but neutral. -- Valjean (talk) 07:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The debate is if it is due or undue. Both specificity & concision are required. Move your comments above from the survey section to the discussion section. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, your "question"(still it's not a question) is not straightforward or especific question. It's a leading question. The answers are not the outcome that we all need. The question should be straightforward like "should we include" or "should we exclude". The arguments should be in the votes not in the question.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC should not be about specific text either, but about the information to be included or excluded. I object to "Los Angeles attorney", which devalues him if he is actually a judge (true?), and "written for CounterPunch", which is not what his article actually says. A suitable question would be "Should the opinion of Frank Menetrez regarding the charge of plagiarism that Finkelstein made against Dershowitz be included?". Zero^talk 08:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Non-neutral RFC; and from where does this idea come that "opinions" are not allowed, they absolutely are if they are from someone qualified to give them. and a full profile can be found in here The UCP cite is given at the
  Case for Israel article.Selfstudier (talk) 11:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

WP:RFC says go edit the bottom of the question space. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment Complaints about the RfC miss the issue: the content is not compliant with policy.
  WP:BLP requires hiqh-quality sources for all information included in BLPs. Counterpunch and Frank Melentrez are neither. Further, opinion pieces are only as reliable as the author for assertions of fact, and there is no reliability established for this author. Attempts to add this material back into the article with its current sourcing will be reported to BLPN. Frank Menetrez is an attorney and now state-level judge, but someone's occupation does not immediately establish them as a reliable source for criticisms. The piece contains allegations of plagiarism against Dershowitz, and is therefore subject to the highest level of BLP scrutiny. This does not pass muster. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I'm afraid that you are making up policy. "Reliable source for criticisms" is a concept that does not exist as a property of the person making the criticism but only as a property of the source reporting the criticism. A book published by the University of California Press meets that requirement beyond question. The fact that Dershowitz has less protection from the BLP rules due to being a public figure is also unquestionable. The only relevant question here is one of weight; since Menetrez is professionally qualified to judge plagiarism and his opinion is reported in multiple places, there is no reason to not report it here. Zero^talk 01:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reasoning you asserted, Dershowitz has less protection from the BLP rules due to being a public figure, is illogical on Wikipedia. Anyone who meets the notability guidelines to have a page is a public figure to some degree. BLP, which centers onsourcing standards, applies equally to all, regardless of fame or notoriety. Second, what I said about criticisms is completely consistent with

WP:BLP

, but it's actually much broader than that.

"We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."

This applies to all material. So if the Menetrez piece is attributable to a reliable source, then inclusion might be appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditor19920 (talk • contribs)

"Public figure" is a legal concept, not a measure of how well someone is known. See

WP:PUBLICFIGURE. For background on why the BLP rules are different for public figures, see public figure. Zero^talk 04:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I beg to differ. Yes, BLP applies to everyone (except editors here), but BLP does make a difference between private and public figures, which is also a reflection of U.S. law, where public figures are afforded much less protection against libel. We must be careful with everyone we write about, but be even stricter with people who aren't very well-known, unlike very public figures. There is a higher bar for them. So the baseline applies to all, but the inclusion criteria are different. Public figures do have less protection, both here and "out there." -- Valjean (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Valjean: You didn't differ, you agreed. Probably I wasn't clear enough. Zero^talk 04:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000:, Oh! Then I misunderstood your first sentence: "The reasoning you asserted, "Dershowitz has less protection from the BLP rules due to being a public figure", is illogical on Wikipedia."

@Valjean: You didn't misunderstand it, but I didn't write it. Wikieditor19920 wrote it but didn't sign. I added an "unsigned" template. I only wrote the two sentences immediately before my signature. Zero^talk 04:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ha! Those unsigned comments are devils. Thanks for the clarification. -- Valjean (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand the difference between PUBLICFIGURE and NOTPUBLICFIGURE, it is true that "Dershowitz has less protection from the BLP rules", in the sense that the rules for PUBLICFIGUREs are less stringent than for NOTPUBLICFIGUREs. Our policy, just like real life laws, affords them less protection. NOTE: We still maintain high sourcing standards for all BLPs. -- Valjean (talk) 04:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

However, Counterpunch is not a reliable source, and that was the citation when you restored it to the page. Furthermore, you restored the material while it was and is subject to an ongoing RfC. The sourcing violates

WP:BURDEN. None of this is made up policy, and I would like to see our admins setting a better example. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Menetrez was present on the page when this RfC was started, and you removed him. So don't lecture me about setting examples. Zero^talk 03:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PUBLICFIGURE

, and it does not in any way suggest that sourcing requirements are lower for prominent persons. Instead, it requires that any information published in reliable source should be included. Key word reliable sources. This is not a forum to debate defamation law, it is to discuss WP policy, and policy does not suggest that we can be less than scrupulous about sources with prominent individuals.

BLP implies exactly the opposite—material likely to be challenged requires the highest quality sources. Controversial material on high-profile individuals' pages is among the content most likely to be challenged, and therefore we should always be careful with the sources used. And while I now agree that the Menetrez material should be included, with the citation the UC Press and Dersh response, I do not believe that continuing an edit war over the material was productive. Per

WP:BURDEN, the material should be left out until the discussion is resolved, not repeatedly restored. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Have I suggested any lowering of sourcing requirements? Not at all. I just point out that BLP does make a difference. I know PUBLICFIGURE very well, as some of my wording is in that policy, and I use it often. That PUBLICFIGURE even exists shows there is a different standard for how we treat private and public persons, which just happens to parallel legal realities, but the sourcing must still be good. If there were no difference, BLP wouldn't describe them separately.

See

WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE for why we are even more careful with "not public figures", and part of the reasoning is legal realities: "in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures." By contrast, public figures in the United States do not enjoy much protection from defamatory statements. They can rarely win a libel suit. -- Valjean (talk) 03:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, I think I understand where you are coming from. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]